It seems like today's Supreme Court ruling that the detainees being held at Guantanamo must have access to US courts could pose major problems for the War on Terror, as well as for more conventional future wars. How is our military supposed to manage foreign military prisoners if each one must be given a lawyer and access to courts thousands of miles away? Justice Scalia apparently agrees with this objection (starting on page 26), and Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog agrees with my interpretation.
I think Congress and the President should draw a line in the sand and ignore this decision. The Constitution doesn't give sole authority for interpretation to the Supreme Court; that's a power they've taken on for themselves. The other two branches of government should be equally interested and equally involved in applying the Constitution, and they should respond to this order with a unified "Make us."
The other two related decisions handed "down" today (love the terminology) are a bit more complicated to parse, and aren't as interesting to me.
Update:
Much more (in agreement) from Eugene Volokh.
Wouldn't it have been neat for my side if in 2000 not only was Clinton president but the Democrats controlled Congress. Then they could have ignored the Supreme Court decision that handed the presidency to Bush.
The Supreme Court decision was a wise one. Let's say down the road some corrupt radical leftist was president. That president's administration didn't like Michael Williams' political agenda and had you detained by falesly accusing you of terrorism. Where would you turn? You'd have no right to see an attorney or appeal your dentention.
JT: Courts aren't the last recourse for justice, armed revolution is.
Under your system, there's no way to reduce the power of the judiciary, because the SCOTUS can just ignore anything it doesn't like (aside from, perhaps, abolishing it via Constitutional amendment).
Apologies for hijacking the thread:
Announcement: In their infinite wisdom [/sarcasm], the USAF web censors blocked me from accessing my log-in page and any mu.nu comment function. Luckily, I should return home in 2-3 weeks, and posting will resume then.
I provide an alternative to "make us" here. Essentially it boils down to, "you blow things up on this one, we're impeaching you, the whole court".
Michael,
Under your system, the President and Congress can ignore or override the Constitution.
These days armed revolution would be difficult. Revolutionists would be tagged as terrorists and detained fairly quickly.
TML: I like it.
JT: The SCOTUS and its lower courts routinely disregard the Constitution. Why shouldn't the other two, more accountable branches do it as well? Or better yet, why shouldn't they disregard the SCOTUS to enforce the Constitution?
I think that the arbitrary detainment of prisoners as "enemy combatants" (a term with no legal basis, FYI), denying them the right to a fair trial when they are US citizens or the rights of prisoners of war when they are foreign, is one of the worst things this administration has done. It's a Nazi-like behavior, it really is, and it's totally unacceptable in a pretendedly "democratic" society like ours. If I have one reason to vote for Kerry, it must be this. The Supreme Court's decision is the absolute minimum. No wonder it was an 8-1 decision. And about time, too, some of these people have been languishing in limbo for nearly 3 years now.
AK: Uh, go read up on enemy combatants. I don't see what any of this has to do with our country being a democracy or not; all democracy means is that people vote on things, there's no habeas corpus requirement. Bonus points for comparing America with Nazis, that alone almost convinced me.
"All people innocent until proven guilty in a court of law"
Sounds American to me, anything else, is UN-AMERICAN!
Clayton: Right, so, in your universe our soldiers can kill people in battle, but it's un-American to take prisoners.
i am weird.